² See Hoskins, H. L., British Routes to India (New York, 1928), for the history of the idea of a canal to Suez 1799–1856.Google Scholar

³ Abbas Pasha ruled 1849–54. On him see Landes, D. S., Bankers and Pashas (London, 1958), p. 77 and pp. 82–87.Google Scholar

⁴ Said reigned 1854–63. See Landes, p. 177.

⁵ On British influence at the Porte 1854–59, see Mange, A. E., The Near Eastern Policy of Napoleon III (Urbana, 1940)Google Scholar, and an unpublished doctoral thesis, Bell, K., ‘The Constantinople Embassy of Sir Henry Bulwer, 1858–65’ (University of London, University of London), ch. 11.Google Scholar

¹ See Landes, pp. 174–79, for a shrewd analysis of this episode.

² The first concession was dated 30 November 1854 and signed 19 May 1855: the second was dated 5 January 1856 and the explanatory codicil 20 July 1856. See Douin, , Histoire du Regne du Khedive Ismail (Rome, 1933–1938)Google Scholar, t. 1, pp. 18–20, and Charles-Roux, J., L'Isthmeet le canal de Suez (Paris, 1901), t. 1, pp. 442–44.Google Scholar

³ Douin, t. 1, p. 20.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Landes, p. 231, n. 2.

⁶ Ibid., p. 181, n. 2.

⁷ Concession of January 1856. See Hallberg, p. 139.

⁸ Ibid, p. 126 seq.

⁹ Landes, p. 177.

¹⁰ See Hallberg, pp. 365–66, and Charles-Roux, t. 1, p. 331, on progress on the works.

¹ Landes, p. 181

² Mange, p. 111.

³ Ibid, p. 112. See also Hallberg, p. 135

⁴ Bulwer held this office from 1858 to 1865.

⁵ Douin, t. 1, pp. 22–23.

⁶ Mange, p. 135, and Bell, ‘The Constantinople Embassy’, p. 245

¹ See Hallberg, p. 155, and Mange, p. 119. Palmerston certainly recognized that opinion in the country differed from his own. Palmerston-Russell, 11 July 1865, PRO. 30/22, 14:

‘Hitherto the course of things about the Suez canal has been mystified (sic) by Lesseps and French agents and has been but little understood in England…. But if Lesseps is allowed to carry out his aggressive schemes the English nation will be much irritated when they are awakened by reality from the delusion under which they now are.’

See also Temperley and Penson, Foundations of British Foreign Policy (Cambridge, 1938), p. 285.Google Scholar

² Temperley, ‘The Treaty of Paris and its Execution’,Journal of Modern History, vol. 4, no. 2 (12 1932).Google Scholar

¹ Charles-Roux, F., Alexandre II, Gortchakoffet Napoleon III (Paris, 1913)Google Scholar, and Mosse, W. E., The European Powers and the German Question (Cambridge, 1958), give the best treatment of this period of subtly shifting relationships.Google Scholar

² Bell, op. cit., pp. 51–55.

³ Russell-Bulwer, 13 December 1859, FO. 78/1427. TRANS. 5TH S.—VOL. 15mdash;1

¹ Crawley, C. W., The Question of Greek Independence. A study of British policy in the Near East, 1821–23 (Cambridge, 1930), p. 167Google Scholar, and Temperley, England and the Near East: the Crimea (London, 1936), p. 73.Google Scholar

² Webster, , The Foreign Policy of Palmerston (London, 1931), vol. 1, pp. 83–84.Google Scholar

³ Hallberg, pp. 84–100 for Austrian interest in a Suez canal. Hoskins, ch. XII and especially pp. 340–41, on Palmerston's wish to use the Euphrates valley railway project as an undisguised political counter to French canal schemes.

¹ So had Disraeli. See for example the debates in Hansard, 3rd Series CXL, p. 1360 seq. and pp. 1386–89, and also CXLVI, pp. 1043–45.

² 21 January 1861, FO. 78/1556

¹ Memorandum. Insuperable objections of Her Majesty's government to the projected Suez canal. Printed for the use of the Foreign Office, 16 May i860, FO. 78/1556.

¹ Bell, op. cit., ch. V.

¹ Bulwer-Russell, 7 December 1859, PRO. 30/22 88:

‘A greater calamity I cannot conceive, and I must add that I do not think that this question, on which public opinion in Europe would be against us, is the question on which to come to an issue.’

² Bulwer-Russell, 28 December, FO. 78/1489,12 January and 8 February 1860, PRO. 30/22 88.

³ To Stanton (Consul-general from June 1865), 10 October 1865, FO. 78/1898.

⁴ See for example Hallberg, p. 181, quoting ambassador Apponyi to Rechberg for a typical Russell comment:

‘The Porte has no need of our counsel in order to understand its own interests; we limit ourselves then to encourage it in its resistance.’

¹ Douin, t. I, p. 174, and Hallberg, pp. 195–96, on Bulwer's strength of purpose. Bulwer's scheme for releasing the Porte from its embarrassment in December 1859 required Russell's taking up the topic of the canal frankly in Paris. See Bulwer-Russell, 28 December 1859, FO.78/1489. See also Bulwer-A. H. Layard (Under-secretary at the Foreign Office), 20 May 1865, Bulwer Papers, T/102:

‘I can't help looking on Egypt as a thorough English question. In fact I think our great fault has been not to state this openly from the first, not as against the canal but as against everything which gives to the canal an exclusive character in favour of French interests.’

² For example see Bulwer-Russell, 13 February 1863, FO. 78/1795, 19 February 1863, PRO. 30/22 92, and Bulwer-Colquhoun (Consul-general in Egypt), 27 February 1863, FO. 78/1733; also Bulwer-Russell, 24 August 1864, Bulwer Papers, T/101, where he declares:

‘We want moreover to be well with the government of Egypt for large questions and not to go out of our way to quarrel with it in small ones.

¹ Douin, t. I, p. 174.

² Temperley and Penson, p. 88 and p. 285.

³ See below, p. 140.

⁴ As evidenced by the occasional complaint such as the following:

‘I sometimes, as an agent, regret the loss of our old traditional policy, which bound us up to certain allies on whom we could rely and who could rely on us.’

Bulwer-Malmesbury, 23 November 1859, PRO. 30/22 88.

⁵ A swift reaction to the Turkish insistence, under British pressure, that work on the canal should be terminated immediately.

¹ Bulwer-Russell, 22 November 1859, FO. 78/1489.

² Ibid.

³ Bell, op. cit., pp. 247–50.

⁴ Russell-Bulwer, 21 December 1859, FO. 78/1489.

⁵ Russell-Sir George Lewis, 19 December 1859, PRO. 30/22 13.

⁶ Bulwer-Russell, 28 December, FO. 78/1489, and 4 January 1860, PRO. 30/22 88.

¹ Bulwer-Russell, 23 November 1859, PRO. 30/22 88.

² Bulwer-Russell, 7 December 1859, ibid., and 28 December, FO. 78/1489.

³ Russell-Bulwer, 24 December, FO. 78/1489.

⁴ Colquhoun-Russell, 2 June 1860, FO. 78/1556.

⁵ See Landes, p. 177.

¹ Bulwer-Russell, 15 June, FO. 78/1556.

² Russell-Bulwer, 19 July, ibid.

³ The French military intervention in Syria extended from September 1860 to June 1861. See Mange, pp. 88–97.

⁴ Douin, t. I, pp. 23–24.

⁵ Palmerston-Russell, 23 November 1861, PRO. 30/22 21.

⁶ Landes, p. 109, n. 2.

⁷ Palmerston-Russell, loc. cit.

¹ Palmerston-Russell, 8 December, ibid.

² Bulwer-Russell, 16 November 1862, PRO. 30/22 91.

³ Bulwer-Russell, 3 January 1863, ibid

¹ Ibid.

² Ibid.

³ See Landes, pp. 177–78 and p. 181; also Douin, pp. 25–31.

⁴ Bulwer-Russell, loc. cit.

⁵ Russell-Bulwer, I February 1863, FO. 78/1795.

⁶ Douin, pp. 32–35.

⁷ Ibid., p. 49.

¹ See Hoskins, pp. 366–67. At the invitation of the viceroy he had made a survey, in November and December 1862, whose results were made available in March 1863. The survey definitely established the feasibility of the canal project.

² Russell-Bulwer, no. 171, 9 April 1863, FO. 78/1796.

³ Hallberg, p. 201, and Landes, p. 184.

⁴ Russell-Bulwer, 29 June, FO. 78/1796.

⁵ Dated 6 April. See Douin, pp. 61–71.

⁶ By falling back on the British alliance and accepting British views on Egypt's proper role in the Ottoman empire.

¹ Originally Nubar asked for the Emperor's decision on the withdrawal of forced labour and for the retrocession of the fresh-water canal to be built from Timsah to Suez. It was simply a question of how much the viceroy should pay by way of indemnity. See Douin, p. 93.

² Douin, p. 131.

³ Ibid., p. 132.

⁴ Ibid., pp. 132–35.

⁵ Russell-Bulwer, 7 September 1864, FO. 78/1849.

¹ Stuart (Chargé d'affaires)-Russell, 26 September 1864, ibid.:

‘(Bulwer's proposals) … had already been communicated to the French chargé d'affaires and in substance by telegram to Paris. The principal points have been already agreed on by the French government.’

² Douin, pp. 141–61.

³ Bulwer insisted on a commission of three, representing the Sultan, the viceroy and the company. The French government only agreed when Britain yielded to the inclusion of a French government representative. See Bell, op. cit., pp. 291–92.

⁴ Douin, pp. 161–65.

⁵ Ibid., p. 165.

⁶ Landes, pp. 255–56.

⁷ Memorandum. Results of the opposition of Her Majesty's government to the Suez canal scheme, FO. 78/1898.

¹ Hallberg, p. 213, n. 1.

² Douin, p. 188.

³ Landes, p. 255. See also Douin, p. 188 and p. 193 for the two conven tions between de Lesseps and the viceroy.

⁴ Douin, p. 189.

⁵ Ibid., pp. 180–81, p. 200.

⁶ Ibid., p. 175.

⁷ Ibid., p. 200.

⁸ Ibid., p. 181.

⁹ The employment of forced labour in Egypt did not entirely cease. It was still used on the canal as late as December 1865. See Douin, p. 186. It is curious that when Britain began to press strongly for the abolition of corvée in the summer of 1863, the English Peninsular and Oriental Steamships company was taking advantage of it. See Hallberg, p. 201.

¹ In the early months of 1865 it was at Constantinople that French influence was likely to have destroyed the British-Turkish-Egyptian front. See Douin, pp. 151, 164.

² The month of the entente between Nubar Pasha and the Porte backed by Bulwer.